Gospel and culture

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

This week our guest lecturer was Dr. Dana L. Robert who wrote the article “Missionaries Sent and Received, Worldwide, 1910-2010” in our text Atlas of Global Christianity 1910-2010. With an analysis of how mission practitioners have used the term “frontier,” she gave an engaging lecture about how missionary conceptions of the “mission field” have changed over the last 100 years. Early on, the mission frontier was conceived in terms of territorial expansion, while later missionaries envisioned engagement with movements that addressed political, labor and race relations as new frontiers. In the post-colonial context the student movement used the metaphor of crossing boundaries, such as that between belief and unbelief, and there were arguments between those who saw crossing geographical boundaries as integral to mission and those who understood frontiers metaphorically as those places where the church meets the world. Today it is the movement to evangelize unreached people groups that most appropriates the discourse of mission frontiers. Dr. Robert noted the work of humanitarian movements, the West as a new mission field that nonwestern migrant missionaries engage, and the English Pioneer Movement as mission frontiers in the 21st century.

Our group conversation focused on the missionary dilemma of how to navigate the interaction between culture and gospel, starting with the case of how western missionaries were successful or not in identifying and managing their own cultural roots as they shared the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once again we enjoyed an engaging discussion that grew out of our different experiences in North America, Africa, India and Korea. We noted a number of factors that help missionaries today keep from imposing unhelpful cultural particularities on the gospel they present. Large immigrant movements allow people to engage other cultures and expressions of the gospel and in the process lose many of their cultural biases. Post-colonial critiques of the missionary movement have helped correct bad methods. In addition, missionaries who take advantage of training that prepares them culturally as well as theologically know better how to engage people different from themselves. Perhaps most importantly, many of today’s missionaries are not foreigners in the regions in which they work but minister in their own culture.

Yet separating gospel and culture is not always easy. Western missionaries still sometimes expect Christians in other cultures to follow western theology or forms of worship for example. We heard from our Indian member about native missionaries who expect their converts to appropriate western dress. From our Korean participants we heard that Korean missionaries also find the issue to be a challenging one, sometimes exporting very westernized forms of educational and health institutions that were imported some generations ago to Korea by Westerners. Western education is often very attractive to people and provides for a way for Korean missionaries to “get their foot in the door”, teaching English for instance. If people want certain aspects of western culture it is perhaps difficult for missionaries to know how much to facilitate that.

On the other hand, we heard that many Korean missionaries have excellent training and are taught to take issues of culture very seriously. They work hard at getting to know the culture they work in and prepare themselves and their contributions in light of that. Inevitably though, missionaries use traditional structures and methods that they know from their own experience, Korean or otherwise. Korean methods, we heard, are often very much influenced by Confucianism, a particularity of that culture that might not be as helpful in other places.

It seems that the issue of the relationship of culture and gospel, especially as it relates to the missionary task, is not simple and must be worked out with careful training and much thought.

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

Statistical center of gravity & African Christianity

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Lead by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

In this week’s class Dr. Johnson spoke on the Statistical Center of Gravity of Christianity over the past two thousand years and showed how it moved from Jerusalem up into Europe by the 1500s and then south and east because of Roman Catholic mission in the Americas. Finally it shifted again back towards the east and further south, ending up in Africa due to current Christian populations there and in Asia. Our groups posed the question of the theological significance of this change and its implications for Christian reflection, discipleship and evangelism. One member from our group expressed her hope that this shift would result in a richer understanding of Christianity as theology becomes contextualized in different cultures. She noted as example that in the West we see Christ as Savior and Redeemer but that in Africa He is more often Healer and Ancestor. Hence there is the occasion for a fuller and richer understanding of Christology. Another member of our group noted the value of hospitality in traditional cultures and suggested that as a resource for evangelism. While in the West we often emphasis orthodox teaching, thinking in terms of hospitality might open new ways of doing evangelism.

Our group spent most of the discussion time reflecting on the readings on Africa from the Atlas of Global Christianity. For one of our group this was her first serious look at African Initiated Churches (AICs), so we talked a bit about how AICs developed during in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was pleasantly surprised to read that AICs provided ways for women to be involved that were not apparent in other churches or in African society in general. They even founded churches in some cases. Being from Korea, she noted similarities from Korean history in which women were pioneer Christian converts who were very involved in their congregations. We asked ourselves if perhaps this is a general characteristic of Global Christianity. Another of our group, also from Korea, asked to what extent the openness to women’s involvement was part of western cultural that was imported to local contexts with Christianity. How does one separate the gospel from the culture of those who bring it? Certainly there is a mix of influences when the gospel is actualized in a particular place by a particular people.

Also with respect to Africa, we asked ourselves what the challenges of Christianity are on the continent. From the Kim and Kim book Christianity as a World Religion we noted the church’s attempt to come to grips with its complicity in violence in situations like Apartheid in South Africa or genocide in Rwanda. Poverty and HIV/AIDS infection rates also present a challenge, and one of our group explained how the upcoming Cape Town meetings hopes to address some of these issues. We noted also the challenge that African Christians face in the continuing influence of African Traditional Religions, particularly the prevalence of witchcraft.

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

Reflections on religious freedom

Editor's note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Lead by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

One of our team members (D) questioned the “time frame” regarding Grim’s statistics. He asks, “How does the time frame of events affect the data as a whole?” In addition, he points out that the presentation did not mention any relationship between social events and religious freedom. For example, he wants to know how the religious riots in India in the 90s affected Indian society since then. Another member (B) shows her concerns over the lack of religious freedom in N. Korea, and wishes more numbers were available to consider.

(Student L) S. Korea does have social restrictions, despite what was seen on the chart. In S. Korea, Christianity is relatively conservative and preaches exclusivity, unlike any other faith in the country. (L) also raises questions over the reasons why the government wants to restrict the practicing of certain religions. Are there any cases when religious restrictions are needed? In other words, statistics can be misleading without mentioning the reasons for restrictions. We should acknowledge the fact that some countries have restrictions based on security.

Student J asks, “will the politicization of religion in Europe be prophetic for other areas where the state controls religion? Will religion fade in areas of the world where the state was tied so close to religion at one time? Or was European Christianity unique?”

Student D introduces very interesting concepts in understanding restrictions on religion, which are “shame-based“ and “guilt-based” cultures. According to him, Western cultures tend to have guilt-based culture which focuses on right or wrong, while Eastern cultures tend to have shame-based culture. And it seems that shame based society has more restrictions on religion (Iran, Iraq, etc). Guilt based societies have fewer restriction on religion (US, Canada, etc). Collective societies have more religious restrictions because they are more concerned about the group and the whole.

Student K argues that the government should play a strong role in promoting religious freedom, but should not be the primary initiative taker. What happens when there are conflicting ideologies brought forth by the government (i.e., banning the veil in France).

A number of members argue that the international community can play an important role by giving guidance to regional governments about religious freedom. Furthermore, religious groups and governments should provide education about the dynamics of all religions, tolerance, and understanding. Finally, regarding the role of the individuals, the role of family education seems to be important. Each family should teach the importance of being tolerant of other religions.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator